bilingual education peer reviewed articles

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Menu

• Education Sciences Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors
• Special Issues
• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Editor’s Choice Articles
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Society Collaborations
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 14 (2024)
• Vol. 13 (2023)
• Vol. 12 (2022)
• Vol. 11 (2021)
• Vol. 10 (2020)
• Vol. 9 (2019)
• Vol. 8 (2018)
• Vol. 7 (2017)
• Vol. 6 (2016)
• Vol. 5 (2015)
• Vol. 4 (2014)
• Vol. 3 (2013)
• Vol. 2 (2012)
• Vol. 1 (2011)

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Bilingual Education in a Challenging World: From Policy to Practice

• Print Special Issue Flyer
• Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Benefits of publishing in a special issue.

• Published Papers

Planned Papers

A special issue of Education Sciences (ISSN 2227-7102). This special issue belongs to the section " Language and Literacy Education ".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 April 2025 | Viewed by 3902

Share This Special Issue

Special issue editor.

Dear Colleagues,

In recent decades, the spread of bi/multilingualism and bi/multilingual education has become a significant phenomenon worldwide. Although the ideas hidden behind the promotion of bi/multilingual education vary from country to country, related policies and educational practices have increased substantially. The EU, Canada, and Singapore are frequently mentioned examples of countries providing bilingual education. In addition, there are bottom-up practices of bilingual schools in Australia and a top-down policy of initiating bilingual education in all levels of schooling in Taiwan. Under this circumstance, learning from other countries is common so that policy-borrowing or policy transfer occurs often. Meanwhile, due to different social and cultural contexts, diverse practices in bilingual education can be expected.

In this Special Issue, original research articles related to bi/multilingual education are welcome. The topics may include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Policy analysis of bi/multilingual education.
• Development of bi/multilingual education in a region or in a country.
• Implementation of bi/multilingual education at the central government or local authority level.
• Practices of bi/multilingual education in pre-university education.
• Practices of bi/multilingual education in higher education.
• Pedagogy of bi/multilingual education.
• Assessment or evaluation of bi/multilingual teaching.
• Bi/multilingual teacher training.
• Professional development of bi/multilingual teachers.
• Teaching material of bi/multilingual teachers.
• Technology-enhanced bi/multilingual teaching.
• Attitudes of children, adolescents, and adults to bi/multilingual education.
• Comparative study of bi/multilingual education.

I look forward to receiving your contributions.

Prof. Dr. Tzu-Bin Lin Guest Editor

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website . Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form . Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Education Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• bilingual education
• multilingual education
• language policy
• bi/multilingual instruction
• Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
• Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
• Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
• External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
• e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here .

Published Papers (2 papers)

The below list represents only planned manuscripts. Some of these manuscripts have not been received by the Editorial Office yet. Papers submitted to MDPI journals are subject to peer-review.

Title: Enhancing Multilingualism Awareness: Preparing White, Monolingual Teacher Candidates for Diverse Classrooms Abstract: /

Title: Challenge-/Competence-Appraisal of Swiss Two-Way Immersion Teachers of the “Cursus bilingue / Bilingualer Studiengang” and Career-Entry Stage Implications Abstract: A growing number of public two-way immersion schools (French-German) in the cantons of Bern, Jura and Neuchâtel in Switzerland led to an increased need of teachers explicitly prepared for those schools (Buser, 2020). These specialized needs of educators resulted in the thoughtfully conceptualized two-way immersion curriculum “Cursus bilingue / Bilingualer Studiengang” jointly offered by two Swiss Universities of Teacher Education located in the French-speaking and in the German-speaking part respectively (Buser, 2017). This article explores the challenge-/ competence-appraisal of two-way immersion teachers of the “Cursus bilingue / Bilingualer Studiengang” (Buser & Meia, 2023). Research data were collected by means of a data collection instrument (Keller-Schneider, 2010) to identify two-way immersion teachers’ appraisals of the challenge posed by their various professional requirements, and the associated feeling of competence as perceived by them. Challenge and competence appraisal is relevant for professional development and professionalization. A total of 689 future teachers - at different stages - from French-speaking, German-speaking and two-way immersion teacher training programs completed a survey measuring professional requirements in challenge and competence dimensions. Structural equation modelling was used to assess the validity of the measures. Teachers’ sense of competence and perceived challenge were compared across different stages and contexts. Based on the results of these two studies, research-based and practitioner-informed implications for an induction program for beginning two-way immersion teachers in their career-entry stage are presented. The challenges caused by the new complexity of requirements they meet as fully responsible two-way immersion teachers calls for such an induction program aiming to foster further professionalization processes needed to master the whole complexity of professional requirements.

Title: Towards embodied content and language integrated learning: Exploring the impact of translanguaging and trans-semiotizing pedagogy in nursing education in Hong Kong Abstract: Internationalization is gaining in popularity in higher education. Bilingual programmes where a second language is used as the medium of instruction have thus become increasingly popular. Content and lan-guage integrated learning (CLIL) with both content and language having an integrated curricular role is one such programme. There has been fruitful research on CLIL in various contexts in primary and sec-ondary education. However, how to integrate language support with content teaching in the health sci-ence discipline has not featured prominently in research literature and efficacy of English-medium (EMI) nursing education is found compromised by the language barrier. In view of the research gap and the pivotal role of nursing education, research on CLIL pedagogy in nursing education is urgently needed. Therefore, this study draws upon the recent theoretical development of translanguaging and trans-semiotizing and investigates the impact of CLIL on university students’ content and language develop-ment in EMI nursing education with a quasi-experimental design. Data on the effectiveness of the translanguaging and trans-semiotizing pedagogy were collected through the pre- and post-tests, student and teacher interviews and classroom interaction recording. Results of the study indicated that: 1) EAL nursing students studying via the English medium are in dire need of academic literacy support; and 2) the translanguaging and trans-semiotizing CLIL pedagogy not only provides nursing students easier ac-cess to subject-specific vocabulary but also supports the unpacking and repacking of nursing knowledge in disciplinary genres. The implications for the language-in-education policy in English-medium nursing education will also be discussed.

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Teachers and Language Outcomes of Young Bilinguals: A Scoping Review

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
• 2 Department of Bilingual Biliteracy Studies, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
• 3 Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
• 4 Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
• PMID: 33751903
• DOI: 10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00066

Purpose The present scoping review seeks to fill an important need in the bilingual research and education community by analyzing the recent research literature on how teacher factors potentially influence young bilingual children's language outcomes. The research aims are twofold: synthesize the research findings on teacher factors that influence bilinguals' language development, and identify gaps in the literature to determine future research directions. Method The search parameters used in this review included peer-reviewed journal articles from 2000 to 2019 in order to synthesize the most recent empirical work on this topic, a focus on typically developing bilinguals from the age of 3 to 8 years, and research designs that included case studies, descriptive, cross-sectional, quasi-experimental, experimental, longitudinal, mixed methods, and qualitative methods. Results A search of major databases for studies on young bilinguals and teachers between 2000 and 2019 combined with multiple levels of screening and review yielded 21 peer-reviewed articles. Four major themes emerged: (a) teacher characteristics, (b) teacher quality, (c) teacher talk, and (d) teacher emotional support. Conclusions Overall, the results of this synthesis suggest that teachers do in fact influence the language development of young bilinguals. Teacher talk and teacher quality were found to be the two themes that were of most interest in the research community, and the results generally supported the positive effect of teacher quality and teacher talk on language outcomes among bilinguals, with some variability. This review has important implications for teacher training and education in an effort to better serve the growing population of bilingual children.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Predictors of Reading Development Among School-Age Bilingual Children With Developmental Language Disorder: A Scoping Review. Ramírez R, Huang BH, Salazar K, Eik M. Ramírez R, et al. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2023 Jul 5;54(3):1020-1033. doi: 10.1044/2023_LSHSS-22-00093. Epub 2023 Apr 14. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2023. PMID: 37059083 Review.
• Phonological development in young bilinguals: clinical implications. Core C, Scarpelli C. Core C, et al. Semin Speech Lang. 2015 May;36(2):100-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1549105. Epub 2015 Apr 29. Semin Speech Lang. 2015. PMID: 25922995 Review.
• Influence of current input-output and age of first exposure on phonological acquisition in early bilingual Spanish-English-speaking kindergarteners. Ruiz-Felter R, Cooperson SJ, Bedore LM, Peña ED. Ruiz-Felter R, et al. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016 Jul;51(4):368-83. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12214. Epub 2016 Mar 8. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2016. PMID: 26952160
• Attitudes of Teachers toward Multilingualism, Heritage Language Maintenance, and Second Language Learning at School. Daelman J, Van Lierde K, Bettens K, Nys J, D'haeseleer E. Daelman J, et al. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2024;76(1):39-57. doi: 10.1159/000531105. Epub 2023 May 17. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2024. PMID: 37231895
• Specific language impairment in language-minority children from low-income families. Engel de Abreu PM, Cruz-Santos A, Puglisi ML. Engel de Abreu PM, et al. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014 Nov;49(6):736-47. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12107. Epub 2014 Sep 11. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014. PMID: 25209889
• Teachers' Language Use in Multilingual Head Start Classrooms: Implications for Dual Language Learners. Chan M, Buttiler MB, Yang F, Yang J, Uchikoshi Y, Zhou Q. Chan M, et al. Children (Basel). 2022 Nov 30;9(12):1871. doi: 10.3390/children9121871. Children (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36553315 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources, other literature sources.

• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Advertisement

Effects of Bilingualism on Students’ Linguistic Education: Specifics of Teaching Phonetics and Lexicology

• Published: 14 September 2023
• Volume 52 , pages 2693–2720, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Zoya Snezhko 1 ,
• Gaukhar Yersultanova 2 ,
• Valentina Spichak 1 ,
• Elena Dolzhich 3 &
• Svetlana Dmitrichenkova 3  

588 Accesses

Explore all metrics

In the study of English in a bylingual environment, issues related to the need to develop students' phonetic and lexical competencies, which include communication, phonetic and auditory skills and lexical sufficiency, are of particular relevance. The motive of this study is the need to improve the methodology of teaching English in the context of student immersion in a foreign language educational environment, by implementing additional thematic courses in the general educational program aimed at improving the phonetic and lexical competencies necessary for successful learning in a bilingual environment. The purpose of the article is to study the feasibility and effectiveness of studying phonetics and lexicology by students-translators who study in a bilingual educational environment. An educational experiment was conducted with the participation of 75 students-translators, in the educational process of which the disciplines of phonetics and lexicology were integrated for two academic hours per week for one year. The effectiveness of studying phonetics and lexicology within the framework of bilingual education has been proved and the skills and achievements of students that they have acquired in the process of bilingual education with an emphasis on phonetics and lexicology have been analyzed. Control tests yielded the following results: among the 46 Russian-speaking participants the percentage of English speakers at the C2 level was 7% (3 people), C1—79% (36 people), B2—14% (7 people). To achieve the most effective learning in a bilingual environment, especially when it takes place in a minority language, it is worth emphasizing students' learning of phonetics and vocabulary. Using this approach, students were able to form and develop a number of phonetic and lexical skills and improve academic performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Methodological Proposal for the Teaching, Learning and Evaluation of Syntax in Secondary School in Bilingual Contexts

European bilingual models beyond lingua franca : key findings from CLIL French programs

Bilingual Education in Europe: Dominant Languages

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Data Availability

Data will be available on request.

Alazard, C., Astesano, C., & BilliÈres, M. (2012). MULTIPHONIA: A MULTImodal database of PHONetics teaching methods in classroom InterActions. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'12) (pp. 2578–2583). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

Arakin, V. D., Selyanina, L. I., & Gintovt K.P. (2013). A practical course in English language. Humanities, VLADOS Center.

Babii, M. (2020). Theoretical aspects of phonetic–lexical competence development in primary school . Retrieved April 4, 2023, from http://dspace.tnpu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/17946/1/24_Babii.pdf

Bak, T. H., & Alladi, S. (2014). Can being bilingual affect the onset of dementia? Future Neurology, 9 (2), 101–103. https://doi.org/10.2217/fnl.14.8

Article   Google Scholar  

Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21 (6), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1203859

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Caro, K., & Mendinueta, N. R. (2017). Lexis, lexical competence and lexical knowledge: A review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8 (2), 205–213. http://dx.doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0802.01

Carr, S., & Cheung, I. (2015). The reinvention of bilingual education in America’s schools. Schooled with Columbia Journalism School’s teacher project. Retrieved April 4, 2023, from https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/bilingual-education-the-promise-of-dual-language-programs-for-spanish-speaking-kids.html

Dandee, W. (2022). Enhancing pronunciation skills through phonetic method. Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan , 14 (3), 4167–4176. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i3.394

Dinevich, I. O. (2021). Typical mistakes in the writing speech of bilingual students. Telos , 23 (3), 602–615. https://doi.org/10.36390/telos233.07

Fakiroğlu, G. D., & Topraksoy, A. (2023). Reflections of bilingualism on the news headlines. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 11 (1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.11n.1p.120

Flores, N. (2016). A tale of two visions: Hegemonic whiteness and bilingual education. Educational Policy, 30 (1), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815616482

Flores, N., & García, O. (2017). A critical review of bilingual education in the United States: From basements and pride to boutiques and profit. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37 , 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000162

García, O., & Woodley, H. H. (2015). Bilingual education . In The Routledge handbook of educational linguistics (pp.132–144). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0091

Goldenberg, C., & Wagner, K. (2015). Bilingual education: Reviving an American tradition. American Educator, 39 (3), 28.

Google Scholar  

Gvishiani, N. B. (2009a). Modern English . Academy Publishing House.

Gvishiani, N. B. (2009b). Lexicology . Academy Publishing House.

Kim, Y. K., Hutchison, L. A., & Winsler, A. (2015). Bilingual education in the United States: An historical overview and examination of two-way immersion. Educational Review, 67 (2), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.865593

Kurashkina, N. A. (2013). The essentials of English phonetics . Flinta.

Lompart, M. (2021). Phonetic categorization ability and vocabulary size contribute to the encoding of difficult second-language phonological contrasts into the lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24 (3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000656

Makarova, E. (2022). Development of phonetic skills of non-linguistic university students and processes of globalization. Humanities and Pedagogical Research , 6 (2), 27. https://doi.org/10.18503/2658-3186-2022-6-2-19-28

Mankovskaya, Z. V. (2013). Grammar for business communication in English (modular-competency approach) . Research and publishing center Infra-M.

Martínez-Soto, T., & Prendes-Espinosa, P. (2023). A systematic review on the role of ICT and CLIL in compulsory education. Education Sciences, 13 (1), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010073

May, S. (2017). Bilingual education: What the research tells us. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 81–100). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_4 .

Mehisto, P., & Genesee, F. (2015). Building bilingual education systems . Cambridge University Press.

Mompean, J. A. (2015). Phonetic notation in foreign language teaching and learning: Potential advantages and learners’ views. Research in Language, 13 (3), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2015-0026

Mompean, J. A., & Fouz-González, J. (2021). Phonetic symbols in contemporary pronunciation instruction. RELC Journal, 52 (1), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220943431

Montoya, O. I. R. (2022). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) to develop writing skills in English. In SciELO Preprints . https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.5155

Murphy, J. M. (2014). Intelligible, comprehensible, non-native models in ESL/EFL pronunciation teaching. System, 42 , 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.007

Murphy, J. M., & Baker, A. A. (2015). History of ESL pronunciation teaching. In M. Reed, & J. M. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 36–65). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346952.ch3

Mustafa, A. M., & Ahamed, S. K. (2022). Using bilingual method in Esl classrooms: Advantages and challenges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17 (3), 2182–2185.

Omarbekova, G. (2023). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as an effective approach for teaching Kazakh language at the University level . Nazarbayev University. https://doi.org/10.53057/linfo/2020.2.1.2

Ondrakova, J. (2016). The issue of errors in teaching foreign languages. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217 , 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.037

Palacios-Hidalgo, F. J., Huertas-Abril, C. A., & Gómez-Parra, M. A. (2021). Foreign and bilingual language education in the UK and Spain: A study of similarities and differences. Journal of Language and Education , 7(2), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.11938

Pennington, M. C. (2015). Research, theory and practice in L2 phonology: A review and directions for the future. In J. A. Mompean, & J. Fouz-González (Eds.), Investigating English pronunciation (pp. 149–173). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137509437_7 . https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137509437_7

Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (2019). English pronunciation teaching and research . Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Perlova, V. V. (2017). Problems of defining causes of phonetic mistakes and errors in English as a foreign language . Applied Language Studies House Publications.

Reardon, S. F., Umansky, I., Valentino, R., Khanna, R., & Wong, C. (2014). Differences among instructional models in English learners’ academic and English proficiency trajectories . Findings from the SFUSD/Stanford Research Partnership. Retrieved from https://cepa.stanford.edu/news/differences-among-instructional-models-english-learners-academic-and-english-proficiency-trajectories

Sánchez, M. T., García, O., & Solorza, C. (2018). Reframing language allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 41 (1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1405098

Schwartz, M., Moin, V., & Leikin, M. (2012). Lexical knowledge development in the first and second languages among language-minority children: The role of bilingual versus monolingual preschool education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15 (5), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.650332

Simonchyk, A., & Darcy, I. (2022). Development of production skills in the absence of precise phonolexical representations. Second Language Research, in Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583211066291

Thomas, E., Apolloni, D., & Parry, N. (2018). Bilingual teaching methods: A quick reference guide for educators. Bangor University. Retrieved April 4, 2023, from https://www.bangor.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/English-pages2.pdf

Tucker, J. (2014). SF seen as model in bilingual education over English only . Chronicle.

Uktamovich, M. E. (2022). Phonetic competence of student and its content. International Scientific Journal, 8 (2), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7615661

Vard, L. R. (2008). Practical course of English phonetics. In V. D. Arakin (Ed.), Practical course of English. The second course: Textbook for students of higher educational institutions (p. 140). Humanities, VLADOS Center.

Vender, M., Hu, S., Mantione, F., Delfitto, D., & Melloni, C. (2018). The production of clitic pronouns: A study on bilingual and monolingual dyslexic children. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2301. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02301

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Xu, X., Padilla, A. M., & Silva, D. M. (2015). Learner performance in Mandarin immersion and high school world language programs: A comparison. Foreign Language Annals, 48 (1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12123

Download references

Acknowledgements

Elena Dolzhich and Svetlana Dmitrichenkova have been supported by the RUDN University Strategic Academic Leadership Program.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Trubetskaya Str., 8/2, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119991

Zoya Snezhko & Valentina Spichak

Language Center, Almaty Managment University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Gaukhar Yersultanova

Department of Foreign Languages of Engineering Academy of RUDN University, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation

Elena Dolzhich & Svetlana Dmitrichenkova

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ZS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing—original draft. GY: Data curation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing—review and editing. VS: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing—review and editing. ED: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Writing—original draft. SD: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Software, Writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoya Snezhko .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Grammar: Choose One Correct Answer

Reading: Read an Article About Penguins and for Questions 11 to 17, Choose the correct Answers

Learning from penguin poop.

The unique features of penguin poop have allowed scientists to make a remarkable discovery. The faeces of Adelie penguins, which live along the Antarctic coast and its islands, have a unique colour. They are bright pink due to the penguins’ diet, which consists largely of pink creatures called krill. They eat so much of it that their plentiful poop stains the ground on which they live, as well as their own bodies. Moreover, they produce so much poop that the pink stains can be seen from space.

This attribute has been useful for scientists studying these birds, as it has allowed them to locate colonies of penguins using satellite images. It isn’t possible to see individual penguins in satellite photos, but the pink stains are easy to identify. Scientists can even estimate the size of the colony from the size of the pink area.

Researchers using this method were, until recently, reasonably certain that they knew the whereabouts of all the Adelie penguin colonies on the continent. However, a colleague at NASA then developed an algorithm which automatically detected these stains, rather than finding them by human eye. The computer programme identified many more pink patches that the researchers had previously overlooked, particularly in the Danger Islands.

Researcher Heather Lynch admitted that the researchers had probably missed these colonies because they never expected to find them there. As the name suggests, the Danger Islands are difficult to get to and are almost always covered in sea ice. They are so small that they don’t even appear on many maps of Antarctica. However, once the researchers were aware of the colonies, they completed a full survey. They discovered 1.5 million penguins in this small area, more than in the rest of Antarctica.

Although this seems a large number, research findings suggest that it is lower than previous years. By studying satellite images from the past, which date back to 1982, the team were able to deduce that penguin numbers peaked in the late 1990s, and have since declined by 10–20%. Krill fishing is one of the main causes for the population decline of penguins in Antarctica, but because the Danger Islands are normally surrounded by sea ice, there is less human activity here than in other parts of the continent. This leads researchers to believe that the recent decline is due to other factors, such as climate change.

The scientists are now conducting research in the area to better understand the species and the long-term health of the colonies. One team, for example, is analysing the colour and content of the poop to investigate changes in the birds’ diet. This can show the extent to which penguins are affected by commercial fishing. Another is digging holes to learn more about the penguins’ past. By radiocarbon dating the bones and eggshells found in these holes, the team have discovered that the penguins have been inhabiting these islands since 2,800 years ago. By learning more about the penguin population of Antarctica, the team hopes to understand more about the impact of human activity on the natural world.

Listening. Watch a Video About the Future of Airport Security. Decide if the Following Statements are True or False.

18. In Vancouver airport, they are concerned about the security in the airport premises.

19. They have implemented security measures similar to those used in Istanbul.

20. Don Ehrenholz gives us an idea of what the new security measures are.

21. The objective is to obstruct, as much as possible, the action of any potential terrorists.

22. Other countries have also taken extraordinary security measures, but many of them only after being attacked by terrorists.

23. In Moscow the terrorists had to go through a security check to get into the airport buildings.

24. In Glasgow airport the terrorist attack caused no casualties.

Writing: Check the ‘Explanation’ Tab Above Before Doing These Exercises. Read the Following for and Against Essay Sample. For Each Gap, Choose the Correct Option from the Expressions in the Box Below

Having an only child is easier for parents and better for kids.

Several centuries ago, it was unbelievable that having only one child could have any advantages. The higher number of children, the bigger opportunities your family had to survive. 23 _ nowadays families with just one child are most common. And as a parent, you will ask yourself what are the advantages and disadvantages of being or having an only child.

24 _ for parents who have just one child is that they need to spend less money and time and can survive with just a small two-bedroom house. 25 _, an only child doesn’t have to share anything, and they get all their parents’ attention and affection. 26 _ of only children is that having just one child prevents traditional problems related to the partition of the parents’ last will. 27 _, there are also well-known disadvantages. 28 _, only children tend to become more selfish and have a more difficult personality. 29 _, if you have a brother or sister, you will always have someone to play with or talk to if you need help or advice. And 30 _ you are the centre of the universe as a child, when your parents grow old, you will be the only one to look after them.

31 _ , either having or being an only child has numerous advantages and disadvantages, and if you are thinking of becoming a parent, you will have to think carefully what you believe is the best for you as a parent, but also for your child.

Reading: Read an Article About Personality and Health, and the Correct Answer

Personality and health.

There is increasing evidence that health is linked to personality. However, until now, the relationship has not affected the way health care is delivered. There are several reasons for this. Some health workers doubt whether there is a direct link between health and personality or whether it’s just a coincidence. Some feel it is their professional duty to treat all patients in the same way. Others argue that delivering health services according to patients’ personalities will have minimal impact and therefore isn’t worth the effort. However, some psychologists believe that applying different procedures to people with different personalities could have a significant, positive effect on health.

Research into personality has, in recent years, focused on the Big Five model of personality types. This model measures how neurotic, extrovert, open to experience, agreeable and conscientious a person is. Some of these personality types have been studied in relation to health. For example, conscientious people tend to be less likely to smoke, drink too much alcohol or be inactive. However, in other cases, the relationship is less clear. Neurotic behaviour, for instance, has been found in some studies to increase the risk of death, in others to protect people from illness and in others to have no link to health at all.

Even so, if health workers applied an understanding of personality to the services they provide, they could influence the extent to which patients act on advice and follow their treatment. For example, high sensation-seeking individuals, who are extroverts and unconscientious in the Big Five model and tend to take part in risky activities, respond to drama, energy and emotion. Thus, to encourage those people to follow health advice, health promotions can be designed to incorporate those factors. An example of this was the campaign SENTAR which aimed to reduce cannabis use among high sensation-seeking teenagers. By creating a suitable television advert, they successfully engaged these youths and reduced their recreational drug use. Of course, this approach isn’t always possible. It is often impractical and expensive to create several versions of a campaign to reach different personality types. However, recent developments in computer technology, cookies and targeted advertising may allow this approach to be used more in future.

Personality could also be considered when sending messages, information and guidance to specific patients. Already, health information is usually available in various forms—printed, digital, audio, and so on—to be suitable and accessible for different users, such as the blind, the elderly, and people with reading difficulties. Research has also shown that, by identifying different patients’ motivations for treatment and then corresponding with them in a way that reflects their motivations, patients will become more involved in their treatment, compared to when the same messages are sent to everyone. Correspondence could, therefore, be adapted to reflect patients’ personality type, too. For example, less conscientious people could be sent phone reminders to attend appointments. So far, there has been very little research into the effectiveness of tailoring health guidance according to personality, so this area deserves further study.

Until now, the focus of personality-health research has been to explore the link between personality and health and has had very little practical application. Thus, health workers have not engaged deeply with it. However, by suggesting, trialling and implementing practices to engage patients with different personalities, the relationship between psychology researchers and health workers could improve, along with the health of the general public.

21. Frida Kahlo was born in Mexico City.

22. As a child, she didn't like to play with her sisters, and preferred to be alone.

23. As a child, she loved drawing, but didn't want to be an artist.

24. She began to paint in a hospital bed after a terrible illness.

25. Diego Rivera saw her paintings and approached her to say she could become a professional artist.

26. Diego Rivera wanted to live in the US, but they returned because Frida missed Mexico.

27. Loneliness made Frida feel a lot of pain, which she reflected in her self-portraits.

28. Frida used her art to cope with her difficult life.

Writing: Check the ‘Explanation’ Tab Above Before Doing These Exercises. Read the Following for and Against Essay Sample. For each Gap, Choose the Correct Option From the Expressions in the Box Below

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in 29 _ to the home exchange service that you offer on your website. We are a family of four who have been considering the possibility of exchanging our main home for some time and we would be 30 _ if you could answer a few questions. 31 _, I would like to 32 _ if some kind of insurance is included in the fee that you charge for your services. We have our own home insurer, but we are not sure if we should talk to them before doing an exchange. I would 33 _ some information on this point.

I would 34 _ like to know if pets can be included in the exchange. We have a cat and we do not have anybody to look after him while we are away. Could you tell me if exchanging pets or leaving a pet in the care of the people who are coming to your home is a common practice?

35 _, I would be interested to receive 36 _ information about the confirmation process. Would you 37 _ telling me if there is an exchange contract that needs to be signed before your exchange?

We would appreciate it if you could answer these questions. I look 38 _ to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Stephanie Clark.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Snezhko, Z., Yersultanova, G., Spichak, V. et al. Effects of Bilingualism on Students’ Linguistic Education: Specifics of Teaching Phonetics and Lexicology. J Psycholinguist Res 52 , 2693–2720 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-10016-x

Download citation

Accepted : 25 August 2023

Published : 14 September 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-10016-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bilingual education
• Increasing language knowledge
• Native speaker
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Articles & Journals
• Books & e-Books
• Citation Tools & Tips
• Course Reserve Materials
• Dissertations & Theses
• E-Newspapers & Magazines
• Evaluating Information
• Library Collections
• Reference Materials
• Research Guides
• Videos, Images & More
• Borrowing & Access
• View Library Account
• Computers, Printing & Scanning Services
• Accessibility Services
• Services for Undergraduate Students
• Services for Graduate Students
• Services for Distance Learners
• Services for Faculty & Staff
• Services for Alumni
• Services for Community Members
• Book A Research Appointment
• Library Presentation Student Survey
• Off Campus Access & Technical Support
• Resources for Writing
• Campus Guide to Copyright
• Teaching Support
• Gifts & Donations
• Hours & Location
• Library News
• TexShare Policy
• Strategic Plan
• {{guide_search}}

Bilingual Education

• Books & E-books
• Related Guides

• Language Arts
• Learning Language & Technology The focus of LLT is not technology per se, but rather issues related to language learning and language teaching, and how they are affected or enhanced by the use of digital technologies.
• << Previous: Databases
• Next: Multimedia >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2024 3:48 PM
• URL: https://library.untdallas.edu/bilingualed

Contact Us:

7350 University Hills Blvd, 3rd Floor, Dallas, Texas 75241 Ph: 972-338-1616 | E-mail: [email protected] © Copyright 2024, UNT Dallas . All rights reserved.

Social Media:

Hours: Mon.-Thur.: 8:00-8:00 | Fri -Sat: 8:00-5:00 |             Sun: 12:00-5:00 Directions & Maps to the Library | Privacy Statement

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

5 Million Voices

6 potential brain benefits of bilingual education.

Anya Kamenetz

Part of our ongoing series exploring how the U.S. can educate the nearly 5 million students who are learning English.

Brains, brains, brains. One thing we've learned at NPR Ed is that people are fascinated by brain research. And yet it can be hard to point to places where our education system is really making use of the latest neuroscience findings.

But there is one happy nexus where research is meeting practice: bilingual education. "In the last 20 years or so, there's been a virtual explosion of research on bilingualism," says Judith Kroll, a professor at the University of California, Riverside.

Again and again, researchers have found, "bilingualism is an experience that shapes our brain for a lifetime," in the words of Gigi Luk, an associate professor at Harvard's Graduate School of Education.

At the same time, one of the hottest trends in public schooling is what's often called dual-language or two-way immersion programs.

How We Teach English Learners: 3 Basic Approaches

Traditional programs for English-language learners, or ELLs, focus on assimilating students into English as quickly as possible. Dual-language classrooms, by contrast, provide instruction across subjects to both English natives and English learners, in both English and in a target language.

The goal is functional bilingualism and biliteracy for all students by middle school.

New York City, North Carolina, Delaware, Utah, Oregon and Washington state are among the places expanding dual-language classrooms.

The trend flies in the face of some of the culture wars of two decades ago, when advocates insisted on "English first" education. Most famously, California passed Proposition 227 in 1998. It was intended to sharply reduce the amount of time that English-language learners spent in bilingual settings.

Proposition 58 , passed by California voters on Nov. 8, largely reversed that decision, paving the way for a huge expansion of bilingual education in the state that has the largest population of English-language learners.

Bilingual Education Returns To California. Now What?

Some of the insistence on English-first was founded in research produced decades ago, in which bilingual students underperformed monolingual English speakers and had lower IQ scores.

Today's scholars, like Ellen Bialystok at York University in Toronto, now say that research was "deeply flawed."

"Earlier research looked at socially disadvantaged groups," agrees Antonella Sorace at the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland. "This has been completely contradicted by recent research" that compares more similar groups to each other.

So what does recent research say about the potential benefits of bilingual education? NPR Ed called up seven researchers in three countries — Sorace, Bialystok, Luk, Kroll, Jennifer Steele, and the team of Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier — to find out.

It turns out that, in many ways, the real trick to speaking two languages consists in managing not to speak one of those languages at a given moment — which is fundamentally a feat of paying attention.

Saying "Goodbye" to mom and then " Guten tag " to your teacher, or managing to ask for a crayola roja instead of a red crayon, requires skills called "inhibition" and "task switching." These skills are subsets of an ability called executive function.

People who speak two languages often outperform monolinguals on general measures of executive function. "[Bilinguals] can pay focused attention without being distracted and also improve in the ability to switch from one task to another," says Sorace.

Do these same advantages accrue to a child who begins learning a second language in kindergarten instead of as a baby? We don't yet know. Patterns of language learning and language use are complex. But Gigi Luk at Harvard cites at least one brain-imaging study on adolescents that shows similar changes in brain structure when compared with those who are bilingual from birth, even when they didn't begin practicing a second language in earnest before late childhood.

Young children being raised bilingual have to follow social cues to figure out which language to use with which person and in what setting. As a result, says Sorace, bilingual children as young as age 3 have demonstrated a head start on tests of perspective-taking and theory of mind — both of which are fundamental social and emotional skills.

Reading (English)

About 10 percent of students in the Portland, Ore., public schools are assigned by lottery to dual-language classrooms that offer instruction in Spanish, Japanese or Mandarin, alongside English.

Jennifer Steele at American University conducted a four-year, randomized trial and found that these dual-language students outperformed their peers in English-reading skills by a full school year's worth of learning by the end of middle school.

Such a large effect in a study this size is unusual, and Steele is currently conducting a flurry of follow-up studies to tease out the causality: Is this about a special program that attracted families who were more engaged? Or about the dual-language instruction itself?

"If it's just about moving the kids around," Steele says, "that's not as exciting as if it's a way of teaching that makes you smarter."

'Invisible' Children: Raised In The U.S., Now Struggling In Mexico

Steele suspects the latter. Because the effects are found in reading, not in math or science where there were few differences, she suggests that learning two languages makes students more aware of how language works in general, aka "metalinguistic awareness."

The research of Gigi Luk at Harvard offers a slightly different explanation. She has recently done a small study looking at a group of 100 fourth-graders in Massachusetts who had similar reading scores on a standard test, but very different language experiences.

Some were foreign-language dominant and others were English natives. Here's what's interesting. The students who were dominant in a foreign language weren't yet comfortably bilingual; they were just starting to learn English. Therefore, by definition, they had much weaker English vocabularies than the native speakers.

Yet they were just as good at decoding a text.

"This is very surprising," Luk says. "You would expect the reading comprehension performance to mirror vocabulary — it's a cornerstone of comprehension."

How did the foreign-language dominant speakers manage this feat? Well, Luk found, they also scored higher on tests of executive functioning. So, even though they didn't have huge mental dictionaries to draw on, they may have been great puzzle-solvers, taking into account higher-level concepts such as whether a single sentence made sense within an overall story line.

They got to the same results as the monolinguals, by a different path.

School performance and engagement.

Wayne Thomas and Virginia Collier, a husband and wife team of professors emeritus at George Mason University in Virginia, have spent the past 30 years collecting evidence on the benefits of bilingual education.

"Wayne came to our research with skepticism, thinking students ought to get instruction all day in English," says Virginia Collier. "Eight million student records later, we're convinced," Wayne Thomas chimes in.

In studies covering six states and 37 districts, they have found that, compared with students in English-only classrooms or in one-way immersion, dual-language students have somewhat higher test scores and also seem to be happier in school. Attendance is better, behavioral problems fewer, parent involvement higher.

Diversity and integration.

American public school classrooms as a whole are becoming more segregated by race and class. Dual-language programs can be an exception. Because they are composed of native English speakers deliberately placed together with recent immigrants, they tend to be more ethnically and socioeconomically balanced. And there is some evidence that this helps kids of all backgrounds gain comfort with diversity and different cultures.

Several of the researchers I talked with also pointed out that, in bilingual education, non-English-dominant students and their families tend to feel that their home language is heard and valued, compared with a classroom where the home language is left at the door in favor of English.

This can improve students' sense of belonging and increase parent involvement in their children's education, including behaviors like reading to children.

"Many parents fear their language is an obstacle, a problem, and if they abandon it their child will integrate better," says Antonella Sorace of the University of Edinburgh. "We tell them they're not doing their child a favor by giving up their language."

Protection against cognitive decline and dementia.

File this away as a very, very long-range payoff. Researchers have found that actively using two languages seems to have a protective effect against age-related dementia — perhaps relating to the changes in brain structure we talked about earlier.

Specifically, among patients with Alzheimer's in a Canadian study, a group of bilingual adults performed on par with a group of monolingual adults in terms of cognitive tests and daily functioning. But when researchers looked at the two groups' brains, they found evidence of brain atrophy that was five to seven years more advanced in the bilingual group. In other words, the adults who spoke two languages were carrying on longer at a higher level despite greater degrees of damage.

The coda, and a caution

One theme that was striking in speaking to all these researchers was just how strongly they advocated for dual-language classrooms.

Thomas and Collier have advised many school systems on how to expand their dual-language programs, and Sorace runs " Bilingualism Matters ," an international network of researchers who promote bilingual education projects.

This type of advocacy among scientists is unusual; even more so because the "bilingual advantage hypothesis" is being challenged once again. A review of studies published last year found that cognitive advantages failed to appear in 83 percent of published studies, though in a separate meta-analysis, the sum of effects was still significantly positive.

One potential explanation offered by the researchers I spoke with is that advantages that are measurable in the very young and very old tend to fade when testing young adults at the peak of their cognitive powers.

And, they countered that no negative effects of bilingual education have been found. So, they argue that even if the advantages are small, they are still worth it.

Not to mention one obvious, outstanding fact underlined by many of these researchers: "Bilingual children can speak two languages! That's amazing," says Bialystok.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.7(9); 2021 Sep

Evidence-based reading interventions for English language learners: A multilevel meta-analysis

Associated data.

Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.

The number of English Language Learners (ELLs) has been growing worldwide. ELLs are at risk for reading disabilities due to dual difficulties with linguistic and cultural factors. This raises the need for finding practical and efficient reading interventions for ELLs to improve their literacy development and English reading skills. The purpose of this study is to examine the evidence-based reading interventions for English Language Learners to identify the components that create the most effective and efficient interventions. This article reviewed literature published between January 2008 and March 2018 that examined the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. We analyzed the effect sizes of reading intervention programs for ELLs and explored the variables that affect reading interventions using a multilevel meta-analysis. We examined moderator variables such as student-related variables (grades, exceptionality, SES), measurement-related variables (standardization, reliability), intervention-related variables (contents of interventions, intervention types), and implementation-related variables (instructor, group size). The results showed medium effect sizes for interventions targeting basic reading skills for ELLs. Medium-size group interventions and strategy-embedded interventions were more important for ELLs who were at risk for reading disabilities. These findings suggested that we should consider the reading problems of ELLs and apply the Tier 2 approach for ELLs with reading problems.

English language learners, Evidenced-based intervention, Meta-analysis, Reading.

1. Introduction

There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of quality education for learners who study in a language other than their native language ( Estrella et al., 2018 ; Ludwig et al., 2019 ). As cultural, racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversification takes place globally, the number of students studying a second language different from their native language is also increasing worldwide. In the United States, nearly 5 million learners who are not native speakers of English are currently attending public schools, and this figure has increased significantly over the past decade ( NCES, 2016 ). As the number of children whose native language is not English increased, the need for educational support also increased. Furthermore, the implementation of NCLB policy emphasizes the need for quality education for all students included in all schools. Accordingly, NCLB has emerged as a critical policy for learners to study in their second language. In other words, there is an urgent need to ensure that non-native English speakers receive appropriate education due to NCLB, which has not only increased the demand for education but also led to the practice of enhanced education for learners whose English is not their native language.

ELLs (English language learners) refer to the education provided for learners whose native language is not English in English-speaking countries ( National Center for Education Statistics, 2021 ). The education provided to these ELLs is called ESL (English as a second language), ESOL (English to speakers of other languages), EFL (English as a foreign language), and so on. Each term is adopted differently depending on the policy, purpose, and status of operation of the state and/or school district. While a variety of terms have been suggested, this paper uses the term ‘ELLs’ to refer to learners who are not native speakers of English and uses the terms ‘the English education program’ and the ‘ELL program’ to refer to the English education program provided to ELLs.

To ensure quality education, students identified as ELLs can participate in supportive programs to improve their English skills. These ELL programs can be broadly divided into two methods: “pull-out” and “push-in” ( Honigsfeld, 2009 ). In the pull-out program, students are taken to a specific space other than the classroom at regular class time and are separately taught English. In the push-in program, the ELL teacher joins the mainstream ELLs’ classroom and assists them during class time. Through these educational supports, ELLs are required to achieve not only English language improvements addressed in Title III of NCLB but also language art achievements appropriate to their grade level addressed in Title I of NCLB. ELLs are expected to achieve the same level of academic achievement as students of the same grade level, as well as comparable language skills.

A considerable amount of literature has been published on the achievement and learning status of ELLs ( Ludwig, 2017 ; Soland and Sandilos, 2020 ). These studies revealed that despite the intensive, high-quality education support for ELLs, they encounter difficulties learning and academic achievement. The National Reading Achievement Test (NAEP) results show that the achievement gap between non-ELLs and ELLs is steadily expanding in the areas of both mathematics and reading ( Polat et al., 2016 ). Ultimately, ELLs are reported to have the highest risk of dropping out of school ( Sheng et al., 2011 ). These difficulties are not limited to early school age. Fry (2007) reported that the results from a national standardized test of 8th-grade students found that ELLs performed lower than white students in both reading and math. Callahan and Shifrer (2016) analyzed data from a nationally representative educational longitudinal study in 2002 and found that, despite taking into account language, socio-demographic and academic factors, ELLs still have a large gap in high school academic achievement. Additionally, research has suggested that ELLs are less likely to participate in higher education institutions compared to non-ELL counterparts ( Cook, 2015 ; Kanno and Cromley, 2015 ).

Factors found to influence the difficulties of ELLs in learning have been explored in several studies ( Dussling, 2018 ; Thompson and von Gillern, 2020 ; Yousefi and Bria, 2018 ). There are two main reasons for these difficulties. First, ELLs face many challenges in learning a new language by following the academic content required in the school year ( American Youth Policy Forum, 2009 ). Moreover, language is an area that is influenced by sociocultural factors, and learning academic contents such as English language art and math are also influenced by sociocultural elements and different cultural backgrounds, which affects the achievement of ELLs in school ( Chen et al., 2012 ; Orosco, 2010 ). Second, it is reported that the heterogeneity of ELLs makes it challenging to formulate instructional strategies and provide adequate education for them. Due to the heterogeneous traits in the linguistic and cultural aspects of the ELL group, there are limitations in specifying and guiding traits. Therefore, properly reflecting their characteristics is difficult.

The difficulties for ELLs in academic achievement raise the necessity for searching practical and efficient reading interventions for ELLs to improve English language and academic achievement, including ELLs' English language art achievement. These needs and demands led to the conduct of various studies that analyze the difficulties of ELLs. Over the past decade, these studies have provided important information on education for ELLs. The main themes of the studies are difficulties in academic achievement and interventions for ELLs, including reading ( Kirnan et al., 2018 ; Liu and Wang, 2015 ; Roth, 2015 ; Shamir et al., 2018 ; Tam and Heng, 2016 ), writing ( Daugherty, 2015 ; Hong, 2018 ; Lin, 2015 ; nullP ) or both reading and math ( Dearing et al., 2016 ; Shamir et al., 2016 ). The influences of teachers on children's guidance ( Kim, 2017 ; Daniel and Pray, 2017 ; Téllez and Manthey, 2015 ; Wasseell, Hawrylak, Scantlebuty, 2017 ) and the influences of family members ( Johnson and Johnson, 2016 ; Walker, Research on 2017 ) are also examined.

Reading is known to function as an important predictor of success not only in English language art itself but also in overall school life ( Guo et al., 2015 ). This is because reading is conducted throughout the school years, as most of the activities students perform in school are related to reading. Furthermore, reading is considered one of the major fundamental skills in modern society because it has a strong relationship with academic and vocational success beyond school-based learning ( Lesnick et al., 2010 ). In particular, for ELLs, language is one of the innate barriers; thereafter, reading is one of the most common and prominent difficulties in that it is not done in their native language ( Rawian and Mokhtar, 2017 ; Snyder et al., 2017 ). In this respect, several studies have investigated reading for ELLs. These studies explore effective interventions and strategies ( Kirnan et al., 2018 ; Mendoza, 2016 ; Meredith, 2017 ; Reid and Heck, 2017 ) and suggest reading development models or predictors for reading success ( Boyer, 2017 ; Liu and Wang, 2015 ; Rubin, 2016 ). For these individual studies to provide appropriate guidance to field practitioners and desirable suggestions for future research, aggregation of the overall related studies, not only of the individual study, and research reflections based on them are required. Specifically, meta-analysis can be an appropriate research method. Through meta-analysis, we can derive conclusions from previous studies and review them comprehensively. Furthermore, meta-analysis can ultimately contribute to policymakers and decision-makers making appropriate decisions for rational strategies and policymaking.

Although extensive research has been carried out on the difficulties of ELLs and how to support them, a sufficiently comprehensive meta-analysis of these studies has not been carried out. Some studies have focused on specific interventions, such as morphological interventions ( Goodwin and Ahn, 2013 ), peer-mediated learning ( Cole, 2014 ), and video game-based instruction ( Thompson and von Gillern ). Ludwig, Guo, and Georgiou (2019) demonstrated the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. However, they divided reading-related variables into “reading accuracy”, “reading fluency”, and “reading comprehension” and examined the effectiveness of the reading-related attributes in each of the variables. Therefore, the study has limitations for exploring the various aspects of reading and their effectiveness for reading interventions.

Individual studies have their characteristics and significance. However, for individual studies to be more widely adopted in the field and to be a powerful source for future research, it is necessary to analyze these individual studies more comprehensively. Meta-analysis reviews past studies related to the topic by 'integrating' previous studies, analyzes and evaluates them through 'critical analysis', provides implications to the field, and gives rise to intellectual stimulation to future studies by ‘identifying issues’ ( Cooper et al., 2019 ). Through this, meta-analysis can be a useful tool for diagnosing the past where relevant research has been conducted, taking appropriate treatment for the present, and providing intellectual stimulation for future studies.

Therefore, the purposes of this study are to examine evidence-based reading interventions for ELLs presented in the literature to analyze their effects and to identify the actual and specific components for creating the most effective and efficient intervention for ELLs. The findings of this study make a major contribution to research on ELLs by demonstrating the implications for the field and future study.

2.1. Selection of studies

A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles on ELL reading interventions published between January 2008 and March 2018 was conducted. According to the general steps of a meta-analysis, data related to reading interventions for English language learners were collected as follows. First, educational and psychological publication databases, such as Google Scholar ( https://scholar.google.co.kr ), ERIC ( https://eric.ed.gov/ ), ELSEVIER ( http://www.elsevier.com ), and Springer ( https://www.springer.com/gp ) were used to find the articles to be analyzed using the search terms “ELLs,” ESL,” “Reading,” “Second language education,” “Effectiveness,” and “Intervention” separately and in combination with each other. We reviewed the results of the web-based search for articles and included all relevant articles on the preliminary list. We selected the final list of the articles to be analyzed by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to the preliminary list of articles. Studies were included in the final list based on three primary criteria. First, each study should evaluate the effectiveness of a school-based reading intervention using an experimental or quasi-experimental group design. In this process, single case, qualitative, and/or descriptive studies for ELLs were excluded from the analysis. Second, we included all types of reading-related interventions (i.e., phonological awareness, word recognition, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension). Third, each study needed to report data in a statistical format to calculate an effect size. Fourth, we only included studies whose subjects were in grades K-12. The preliminary list had 75 articles, but since some of these studies did not meet the inclusion criteria, we excluded them from the final list for analysis. In total, this meta-analysis included 28 studies with 234 effect sizes (see Figure 1 ).

Prisma flow diagram.

2.2. Data analysis

2.2.1. coding procedure.

To identify the relevant components of the evidence-based reading interventions for ELLs, we developed an extensive coding document. Our interest was in synthesizing the effect sizes and finding the variables that affect the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs. The code sheet was made based on a code sheet used in Vaughn et al. (2003) and Wanzek et al. (2010) . All studies were coded for the following: (a) study characteristics, including general information about the study, (b) student-related variables, (c) intervention-related variables, (d) implementation-related variables, (e) measurement-related variables, and (f) quantitative data for the calculation of effect sizes.

Within the study characteristics category, we coded the researchers’ names, publication year, and title from each study to identify the general information about each study. For the student-related variables, mean age, grade level(s), number of participants, number of males, number of females, sampling method, exceptionality type (reading ability level), identification criteria in case of learning disabilities, race/ethnicity, and SES were coded. We divided grade level(s) into lower elementary (K-2), upper elementary (3–5), and secondary (6–12). When students with learning disabilities participated in the study, we coded the identification criteria reported in the study. For race/ethnicity, we coded white, Hispanic, black, Asian, and others. Within intervention-related variables, we coded for the title of the intervention, the key instructional components of the intervention, the type of intervention, and the reading components of the intervention. The reading components coded were phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and others. If an intervention contained multiple reading components, all reading components included in the intervention were coded. Fourth, within implementation-related variables, we coded group size, duration of the intervention (weeks), the total number of sessions, frequency of sessions per week, length of each session (minutes), personnel who provided the intervention (i.e., teacher, researchers, other), and the setting. Fifth, in measurement-related variables, we coded the title of the measurement, reliability coefficient, validity coefficient, type of measurement, type of reliability, and type of validity. We also coded quantitative data such as the pre- and posttest means, the pre- and posttest standard deviations, and the number of participants in the pre- and posttests for both the treatment and control groups. These coding variables are defined in Table 1 . The research background and sample information are in Appendix 1 .

Table 1

Coding variables.

2.2.2. Coding reliability

The included articles were coded according to the coding procedure described above. Two researchers coded each study separately and reached 91% agreement. Afterward, the researchers reviewed and discussed the differences to resolve the initial disagreements.

2.2.3. Data analysis

First, we calculated 234 effect sizes from the interventions included in the 28 studies. The average effect size was calculated using Cohen's d formula. In addition, we conducted a two-level meta-analysis through multilevel hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) using the HLM 6.0 interactive mode statistical program to analyze the computed effect sizes and find the predictors that affect the effect sizes of reading interventions. HLM is appropriate to quantitatively obtain both overall summary statistics and quantification of the variability in the effectiveness of interventions across studies as a means for accessing the generalizability of findings. Moreover, HLM easily incorporates the overall mean effect size using the unconditional model, and HLM is useful to explain variability in the effectiveness of interventions between studies in the conditional model. The aim of the current study is to provide a broad overview of interventions for ELLs. To achieve this aim, we conducted an unconditional model for overall mean effect size and conducted a conditional model to identify factors that have an impact on the strength of effect sizes. In regard to variables related to the effectiveness of interventions, we conducted a conditional model with student-related, measurement-related, intervention-related, and implementation-related variables. In the case of quantitative meta-analyses, it is assumed that observations are independent of one another ( How and de Leeuw, 2003 ). However, this assumption is usually not applied in social studies if observations are clustered within larger groups ( Bowman, 2003 ) because each effect size within a study might not be homogeneous ( Beretvas and Pastor, 2003 ). Thus, a two-level multilevel meta-analysis using a mixed-effect model was employed because multiple effect sizes are provided within a single education study. To calculate effect size (ES) estimates using Cohen's d, we use the following equation [1]:

The pooled standard deviation, SD pooled , is defined as

In HLM, the unconditional model can be implemented to identify the overall effect size across all estimates and to test for homogeneity. If an assumption of homogeneity is rejected by an insignificant chi-square coefficient in the unconditional model, this means that there are differences within and/or between studies. This assumption must go to the next step to find moderators that influence effect sizes. This step is called a level two model or a conditional model. A conditional model is conducted to investigate the extent of the influence of the included variables.

The level one model (unconditional model) was expressed as [3], and the level two model (the conditional model was expressed as [4].

In equation (3) , δ j represents the mean effect size value for study j, and e j is the within-study error term assumed to be theoretically normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance of V j . In the level two model equation [4], γ 0 represents the overall mean effect size for the population, and u j represents the sampling variability between studies presumed to be normally distributed with a mean of 0 and a variance τ .

Regarding publication bias, we looked at the funnel plot with the 'funnel()' command of the metafor R package ( Viechtbauer, 2010 ), and to verify this more statistically, we used the dmetar R package ( Harrer et al., 2019 ). Egger's regression test ( Egger et al., 1997 ) was conducted using the 'eggers.test()' command to review publication bias. Egger's regression analysis showed that there was a significant publication error (t = 3.977, 95% CI [0.89–2.54], p < .001). To correct this, a trim-and-fill technique ( Duval and Tweedie, 2000 ) was used. As a result, the total effect size corrected for publication bias was also calculated. The funnel plot is shown in [ Figure 2 ].

Funnel plot.

We analyzed 28 studies to identify influential variables that count for reading interventions for ELLs. Before performing the multilevel meta-analysis, the effect size of 28 studies was analyzed by traditional meta-analysis. The forest plots for the individual effect sizes of 28 studies are shown in Appendix 2. We present our findings with our research questions as an organizational framework. First, we showed an unconditional model for finding the overall mean effect size. Then, we described the variables that influenced the effect size of reading interventions for ELLs using a conditional model.

3.1. Unconditional model

An unconditional model of the meta-analysis was tested first. In the analysis, restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used. This analysis was conducted to confirm the overall mean effect size and to examine the variability among all samples. The results are shown in Table 2 .

Table 2

Results of the unconditional model analysis.

∗∗∗ p < 0.001, df: degree of freedom.

The intercept coefficient in the fixed model is the overall mean effect size from 234 effect sizes. This means that the effect of reading intervention for English language learners is medium based on Cohen's d. Cohen's d is generally interpreted as small d = 0.2, medium d = 0.5 and large d = 0.8. The variance component indicates the variability among samples. The estimate was 0.589 and remained significant (χ 2 = 1245.90, p < . 001). This statistical significance means that moderator analysis with dominant predictors in a model is required to explore the source of variability.

3.2. Conditional model

Moderator analysis using the conditional model was expected to identify factors that have an impact on the strength of effect sizes. In this study, the moderator analysis was administered by nine critical variable categories: students’ grade, exceptionality, SES, reading area, standardized test, test reliability, intervention type, instructor, and group size. Variables in each category were coded by dummy coding. Dummy coding was used to identify the difference in dependent variables between the categories of independent variables. For example, we used four dummy variables to capture the five dimensions. The parameter estimates capture the differences in effect sizes between the groups that are coded 1 and a reference group that is coded 0. From a mathematical perspective, it does not matter which categorical variable is used as the referenced group ( Frey, 2018 ). We labeled one variable in each category as a reference group to make the interpretation of the results easier. We used an asterisk mark to denote the reference group for each category; if a word has an asterisk next to it, this indicates that it is the reference group for that category.

• 1) Student-related variables

The results of the conditional meta-analysis for students' grade variables are presented in Table 3 . In Table 3 , the significant coefficients mean that mean effect sizes are significantly larger for studies in reference conditions. For student grades, upper elementary students showed significantly larger mean effect sizes than secondary students (2.720, p = 0.000), but preschool students showed significantly lower mean effect sizes than secondary students (-0.103, p = 0.019). The Q statistic was significant for students’ grades ( Q = 27.20, p < 0.001) (see Table 4 ).

Table 3

Results of the moderator analysis for student grade.

df: degree of freedom.

Table 4

Results of the moderator analysis for exceptionality.

For the student-related variables, students with low achievement showed significantly larger mean effect sizes scores than general students (0.707, p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between students with low achievement and general students. The Q statistic was significant for students’ exceptionality ( Q = 0.0278, p < 0.001).

Table 5 shows that low and low-middle SES was not significantly different from students with no information about SES (0.055, p = 0.666). Moreover, students with middle and upper SES did not have significantly smaller effect sizes than students with nonresponse (-0.379, p = 0.444). The Q statistic was significant for students’ SES ( Q = 68.50, p < 0.001).

Table 5

Results of the moderator analysis for SES.

• 2) Measurement-related variables

Table 6 shows the results of the moderator analysis for measurement types. The coefficient for the standardized measurement-related variable was not significant. The Q statistic was significant for the standardization of measurement tools ( Q = 5.28, p < 0.001).

Table 6

Results of the moderator analysis for standardization of measurement tools.

Table 7 shows the results of the moderator analysis for the reliability of the measurement tools. The coefficient for the measurement reliability-related variable was significant (0.409, p = 0.003), which means that the effect sizes of measurements that reported reliability (ES = 0.770) were significantly larger than the effect sizes of measurements that had information about reliability (ES = 0.361). The Q statistic was significant for the reliability of the measurement tools ( Q = 5.82, p < 0.001) (see Table 8 ).

Table 7

Results of the moderator analysis for reliability.

Table 8

Results of the moderator analysis for content of the intervention.

• 3) Intervention-related variables

The content of the intervention was divided into phonological awareness, reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and other areas. Studies measured other areas that functioned as a reference group. For the measurement area, all reading areas were significantly larger than other areas. Reading fluency (1.150, p = 0.001), reading comprehension (0.971, p = 0.000) and listening comprehension (0.834, p = 0.002) were significantly larger than those in the other areas. However, phonological awareness and vocabulary were significantly larger than other areas but lower than reading fluency, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension (0.528, p = 0.013; 0.442, p = 0.000). The Q statistic was significant for the content of the intervention ( Q = 24.005, p < 0.001).

For intervention types, strategy instruction, peer tutoring, and computer-based learning were compared to other methods, which were fixed as a reference group. Table 9 shows that strategy instruction was significantly larger than other methods in mean effect sizes (0.523, p = 0.001). However, studies that applied peer tutoring and computer-based learning showed lower than other methods, but these differences were not statistically significant (-0.113, p = 0.736; -0114, p = 0.743). The Q statistic was significant for intervention types ( Q = 73.343, p < 0.001).

Table 9

Results of the moderator analysis for intervention types.

• 4) Implementation-related variables

For instructor-related variables, other instructor-delivered instructions were assigned as a reference group. Table 10 shows that the teacher and researcher groups showed significantly larger than the other instructors. Moreover, the teacher group showed larger than the researcher group (0.909, p = 0.000). The Q statistic was significant for instructor-related variables ( Q = 14.024, p < 0.001).

Table 10

Results of the moderator analysis for instructor.

For group size, mixed groups were fixed as a reference group. Group size variables were divided into a small group (1 or more and 5 or less), a middle group (6 or more and 15 or less), and a large group or class size (16 or more). Table 11 shows that the middle group (6 or more and 15 or less) and the small group (1 or more and 5 or less) were significantly larger than the mixed group (0.881, p = 0.000; 0.451, p = 0.006). However, the difference between the large group and the mixed group was not significant (0.120, p = 0.434). The Q statistic was significant for group size variables ( Q = 17.756, p < 0.001).

Table 11

Results of the moderator analysis for group size.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the effects of reading interventions for ELLs and to identify research-based characteristics of effective reading interventions for enhancing their reading ability. To achieve this goal, this study tried to determine the answers to two research questions. What is the estimated mean effect size of reading interventions for ELLs in K-12? To what extent do student-, intervention-, implementation-, and measurement-related variables have effects on improving the reading ability of ELLs in K-12? Therefore, our study was limited to recent K-12 intervention studies published between January 2008 and March 2018 that included phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension as intervention components and outcome measures. A total of 28 studies were identified and analyzed. To inquiry the two main research questions, a two-level meta-analysis was employed in this study. For the first research question, the unconditional model of HLM was conducted to investigate the mean effect size of reading interventions for ELLs. The conditional model of HLM was conducted to determine which variables have significant effects on reading interventions for ELLs. Below, we briefly summarized the results of this study and described the significant factors that seem to influence intervention effectiveness. These findings could provide a better understanding of ELLs and support implications for the development of reading interventions for ELLs.

4.1. Effectiveness of reading interventions for ELLs

The first primary finding from this meta-analysis is that ELLs can improve their reading ability when provided appropriate reading interventions. Our findings indicated that the overall mean effect size of reading interventions of ELLs yielded an effect size of 0.653, which indicates a medium level of effect. From this result, we can conclude that the appropriate reading interventions generally have impacts on reading outcomes for ELLs in K-12. This is consistent with prior syntheses reporting positive effects of reading interventions for ELLs ( Vaughn et al., 2006 ; Abraham, 2008 ).

Effect size information is important to understand the real effects of the intervention. Therefore, this finding indicated that supplementary reading interventions for ELLs will be developed and implemented. This finding also showed that states are required to develop a set of high-quality reading interventions for ELLs. Language interventions for ELLs have become one of the most important issues in the U.S. Increasing numbers of children in U.S. schools have come from homes in which English is not the primary language spoken. NCES (2016) showed that 4.9 million students, or 9.6% of public school students, were identified as ELLs, which was higher than the 3.8 million students, or 8.1%, identified in 2000 ( NCES, 2016 ). While many students of immigrant families succeed in their academic areas, too many do not. Some ELLs lag far behind native English speakers in the school because of the strong effect of language factors on the instruction or assessment. Although English is not their native language, ELLs should learn educational content in English. This leads to huge inequity in public schools. Thus, improving the English language and literacy skills of ELLs is a major concern for educational policymakers. This finding can support practitioners’ efforts and investments in developing appropriate language interventions for ELLs.

4.2. The effects of moderating variables

The second primary finding of this meta-analysis relates to four variable categories: student-, intervention-, implementation-, and measurement-related variables. Effective instruction cannot be designed by considering one factor. The quality of instruction is the product of many factors, including class size, the type of instructions, and other resources. This finding showed which factors affected the effectiveness of reading interventions. Specifically, we found that the variables that proved to have significant effects on reading outcomes of ELLs were as follows: upper elementary students, reliable measurement tools, reading and listening comprehension-related interventions, strategy instruction, and the middle group consisting of 6 or more and 15 or less. Teachers and practitioners in the field may choose to adopt these findings into their practices. ELL teachers may design their instruction as strategy-embedded instruction in middle-sized groups.

We found that grades accounted for significant variability in an intervention's effectiveness. Specifically, we found that reading interventions were substantially more effective when used with upper elementary students than secondary students. This means that the magnitude of an intervention's effectiveness changed depending on when ELLs received reading interventions. Specifically, the larger effect sizes on upper elementary students than secondary schools showed the importance of early interventions to improve ELLs' language abilities. Students who experience early reading difficulty often continue to experience failure in later grades. ELLs, or students whose primary language is other than English and are learning English as a second language, often experience particular challenges in developing reading skills in the early grades. According to Kieffer (2010) , substantial proportions of ELLs and native English speakers showed reading difficulties that emerged in the upper elementary and middle school grades even though they succeeded in learning to read in the primary grades.

Regarding students’ English proficiency and academic achievement, there was no statistically significant difference between students with low achievement and general students. Given the heterogeneity of the English language learner population, interventions that may be effective for one group of English language learners may not be effective with others ( August and Shanahan, 2006 ). This result is similar to the results achieved by Lovett et al. (2008) . Lovett et al. (2008) showed that there were no differences between ELLs and their peers who spoke English as a first language in reading intervention outcomes or growth intervention. This finding suggests that systematic and explicit reading interventions are effective for readers regardless of their primary language.

For students' socioeconomic status (SES), there was no significant difference between the low-middle group and the nonresponse group. However, we cannot find that students' SES is critical for implementing reading interventions. Low SES is known to increase the risk of reading difficulties because of the limited access to a variety of resources that support reading development and academic achievement ( Kieffer, 2010 ). Many ELLs attend schools with high percentages of students living in poverty ( Vaughn et al., 2009 ). These schools are less likely to have adequate funds and resources and to provide appropriate support for academic achievement ( Donovan and Cross, 2002 ). Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998) highlighted multiple and complex factors that contribute to poor reading outcomes in school, including a lack of qualified teachers and students who come from poverty. Although this study cannot determine the relationship between the effectiveness of reading interventions and the SES of students, more studies are needed. In addition, these results related to students’ characteristics showed that practitioners and teachers can consider for whom to implement some interventions. Researchers should provide a greater specification of the student samples because this information will be particularly critical for English language learners.

Although many of the studies measured a variety of outcomes across all areas of reading, interventions that focused on improving reading comprehension and listening comprehension obtained better effects than other reading outcomes. This result is similar to those discussed in previous findings ( Wanzek and Roberts, 2012 ; Carrier, 2003 ).

With regard to effective intervention types, the findings indicated that strategy instruction was statistically significant for improving the reading skills of ELLs. However, computer-based interventions, which are frequently used for reading instruction for ELLs in recent years, showed lower effect sizes than mixed interventions. Strategy instructions are known as one of the effective reading interventions for ELLs ( Proctor et al., 2007 ; Begeny et al., 2012 ; Olson and Land, 2007 ; Vaughn et al., 2006 ). These strategies included activating background knowledge, clarifying vocabulary meaning, and expressing visuals and gestures for understanding after reading. Some studies have shown that computer-based interventions are effective for ELLs ( White and Gillard, 2011 ; Macaruso and Rodman, 2011 ), but this study does not. Therefore, there is little agreement in the research literature on how to effectively teach reading to ELLs ( Gersten and Baker, 2000 ). Continued research efforts must specify how best to provide intervention for ELLs.

With respect to the implementation of the intervention, teachers and researchers as instructors would produce stronger effects than other instructors. In this study, multiple studies showed that various instructors taught ELLs, including teachers, graduate students, and researchers. The professional development of instructors is more important than that of those who taught ELLs. This finding is consistent with Richards-Tutor et al. (2016) . They also did not find differences between researcher-delivered interventions and school personnel-delivered interventions. Continuing professional development should build on the preservice education of teachers, strengthen teaching skills, increase teacher knowledge of the reading process, and facilitate the integration of newer research on reading into the teaching practices of classroom teachers ( Snow et al., 1998 ). Overall, professional development is the key factor in strengthening the reading skills of ELLs.

This study showed that medium-sized groups of 6 or more and 15 or less had larger effect sizes than the mixed groups. In addition, the medium-sized group showed a larger effect size than the small group of 5 or less. This finding showed that a multi-tiered reading system should be needed in the general classroom. This finding is linked to the fact that the reaction to intervention (RTI) approach is more effective for ELLs. Linan-Thompson et al. (2007) pointed out that RTI offers a promising alternative for reducing the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education by identifying students at risk early and providing preventive instruction to accelerate progress. Regarding interventions for ELLs who are struggling with or at risk for reading difficulties, Ross and Begeny (2011) compared the effectiveness between small group interventions and implementing the intervention in a 1/1 context for ELLs. They showed that nearly all students benefitted from the 1/1 intervention, and some students benefitted from the small group intervention. This finding is commensurate with a previous study investigating the comparative differences between group sizes and suggests research-based support for the introduction of the RTI approach.

However, most implementation-related variables, including duration of intervention, the total number of sessions, frequency per week, length of each session, settings, and instructor, did not have any significant effect on the reading ability of ELLs. That is, ELLs are able to achieve their reading improvement regardless of the duration of intervention, where they received the reading intervention, and who taught them. This finding is similar to those discussed by Snyder et al. (2017) . They also synthesized the related interventions for ELLs and showed that the length of intervention did not seem to be directly associated with overall effect sizes for reading outcomes. This finding is also the same as recent research on intervention duration with native English speakers ( Wanzek et al., 2013 ). Wanzek and colleagues examined the relationship between student outcomes and hours of intervention in their meta-analysis. The findings showed no significant differences in student outcomes based on the number of intervention hours. Elbaum et al. (2000) stated that the intensity of the interventions is most important for effectiveness. Our results somewhat support these researchers’ opinions, but we cannot be certain that a brief intervention would have the same overall effect on reading outcomes as a year-long intervention. Thus, we should consider the intervention intensity, such as student attendance at the sessions, with the duration of the intervention.

4.3. Implications for practice and for research

The most effective and efficient education refers to education that is made up in the right ways, that includes proper content, and that is delivered on time so that the students can benefit the most. To implement this, research to identify a particular framework based on the synthesis of research results through meta-analysis, such as this study, must be conducted. Furthermore, the implications based on the results must be deeply considered. In this respect, important implications for the practice and research of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers on enhancing reading competence for ELLs of this study are as follows.

First, reading interventions for ELLs are expected to be the most efficient when conducted on a medium-sized group of 6–15 students. This indicates that implementing reading interventions for ELLs requires a specially designed group-scale configuration rather than simply a class-wide or one-to-one configuration. Second, the implementation of reading interventions for ELLs is most effective when conducted for older elementary school students. This is in contrast to Morgan and Sideridis (2006) , who demonstrated the characteristics of students with learning disabilities using multilevel meta-analysis and showed that age groups were irrelevant in the effect size of reading interventions for students with learning disabilities. Therefore, it can be seen that the ELLs group, unlike the learning disability group, the students of which have reading difficulty due to their disabilities, is in the normal development process but has reading difficulty due to linguistic differences. Accordingly, it can be seen that the senior year of elementary school, in which a student has been exposed to the academic environment for a sufficiently long time and language is sufficiently developed, is the appropriate time for learning English for ELLs. Third, effective reading interventions for ELLs should be performed with a strategy-embedded instruction program. This is based on the fact that strategic instructions are effective for vocabulary or concepts in unfamiliar languages ( Carlo et al., 2005 ; Chaaya and Ghosn, 2010 ).

The above implications require the implementation of Tier 2 interventions for reading interventions for ELLs in practice. In Tier 2 interventions, students can participate in more intensive learning through specially designed interventions based on their personal needs ( Ortiz et al., 2011 ). In other words, in policymaking and administrative decision-making, intensive education programs for ELLs who have been exposed to the academic environment for a certain period but still have reading difficulties, including having achievements that fall short of the expected level, are needed.

Considering further applications, these findings could guide practitioners and policymakers to develop effective evidence-based reading programs or policies. The significant variables in this study can be considered to develop new programs for ELLs.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A3A2A02103411).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interests statement.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

• Abraham L.B. Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: a meta-analysis. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2008; 21 (3):199–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• August D., Shanahan T. In: Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. August D., Shanahan T., editors. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, NJ: 2006. Synthesis: instruction and professional development; pp. 351–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Begeny J.C., Ross S.G., Greene D.J., Mitchell R.C., Whitehouse M.H. Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) reading fluency program with Latino English language learners: a preliminary evaluation. J. Behav. Educ. 2012; 21 (2):134–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beretvas S.N., Pastor D.A. Using mixed-effects models in reliability generalization studies. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2003; 63 (1):75–95. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowman N.A. Effect sizes and statistical methods for meta-analysis in higher education. Res. High. Educ. 2003; 53 :375–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyer K. The Relationship Between Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension in Third Grade Students Who Are English Language Learners and Reading Below Grade Level. 2017. (Masters Thesis) [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlo M.S., August D., Snow C.E. Sustained vocabulary-learning strategy instruction for English-language learners. Teach. Learn. Vocabul.: Bring. Res. Pract. 2005:137–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrier K.A. Improving high school English language learners' second language listening through strategy instruction. Biling. Res. J. 2003; 27 (3):383–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaaya D., Ghosn I.K. Supporting young second language learners reading through guided reading and strategy instruction in a second grade classroom in Lebanon. Educ. Res. Rev. 2010; 5 (6):329–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen X., Ramirez G., Luo Y.C., Geva E., Ku Y.M. Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish-and Chinese-speaking ELLs: the effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors. Read. Writ. 2012; 25 (8):1991–2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M.W. Speaking to read: meta-analysis of peer-mediated learning for English language learners. J. Lit. Res. 2014; 46 (3):358–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper H., Hedges L.V., Valentine J.C., editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daniel S.M., Pray L. Learning to teach English language learners: a study of elementary school teachers’ sense-making in an ELL endorsement program. Tesol Q. 2017; 51 (4):787–819. [ Google Scholar ]
• Daugherty J.L. 2015. Assessment of ELL Written Language Progress in Designated ESL Noncredit Courses at the Community College Level. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dearing E., Walsh M.E., Sibley E., Lee-St. John T., Foley C., Raczek A.E. Can community and school-based supports improve the achievement of first-generation immigrant children attending high-poverty schools? Child Dev. 2016; 87 (3):883–897. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donovan M.S., Cross C.T. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2002. Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Lockbox 285, 20055. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dussling T.M. Examining the effectiveness of a supplemental reading intervention on the early literacy skills of English language learners. Liter. Res. Instr. 2018; 57 (3):276–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duval S., Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000; 56 (2):455–463. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egger M., Smith G.D., Schneider M., Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997; 315 (7109):629–634. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elbaum B., Vaughn S., Tejero Hughes M., Watson Moody S. How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020; 92 (4):605–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Estrella G., Au J., Jaeggi S.M., Collins P. Is inquiry science instruction effective for English language learners? A meta-analytic review. AERA Open. 2018; 4 (2) 2332858418767402. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey B.B. Sage Publications; 2018. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gersten R., Baker S. What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Except. Child. 2000; 66 (4):454–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo Y., Sun S., Breit-Smith A., Morrison F.J., Connor C.M. Behavioral engagement and reading achievement in elementary-school-age children: a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015; 107 (2):332–347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin A.P., Ahn S. A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: effects on literacy outcomes for school-age children. Sci. Stud. Read. 2013; 17 (4):257–285. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrer M., Cuijpers P., Furukawa T.A., Ebert D.D. Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-On guide. from. 2019. https://bookdown.org/MathiasHarrer/Doing_Meta_Analysis_in_R/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong H. Exploring the role of intertextuality in promoting young ELL children’s poetry writing and learning: a discourse analytic approach. Classr. Discourse. 2018; 9 (2):166–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Honigsfeld A. ELL programs: not ‘one size fits all’ Kappa Delta Pi Rec. 2009; 45 (4):166–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• How J.J., de Leeuw E.D. In: Multilevel Modeling: Methodological Advances, Issues, and Applications. Reise S.P., Duan N., editors. Lawrence Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003. Multilevle model for meta-analysis; pp. 90–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson E.J., Johnson A.B. Enhancing academic investment through home-school connections and building on ELL students' scholastic funds of knowledge. J. Lang. Literacy Educ. 2016; 12 (1):104–121. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieffer M.J. Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educ. Res. 2010; 39 (6):484–486. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim K. Global Conference on Education and Research (GLOCER 2017) 2017. May). Influence of ELL instructor’s culturally responsive attitude on newly arrived adolescent ELL students’ academic achievement; pp. 239–242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirnan J., Ventresco N.E., Gardner T. The impact of a therapy dog program on children’s reading: follow-up and extension to ELL students. Early Child. Educ. J. 2018; 46 (1):103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lesnick J., Goerge R., Smithgall C., Gwynne J. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago; Chicago, IL: 2010. Reading on Grade Level in Third Grade: How Is it Related to High School Performance and College Enrollment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin S.M. A study of ELL students' writing difficulties: a call for culturally, linguistically, and psychologically responsive teaching. Coll. Student J. 2015; 49 (2):237–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P.T., Vaughn S. Determining English language learners' response to intervention: questions and some answers. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2007; 30 (3):185–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu S., Wang J. Reading cooperatively or independently? Study on ELL student reading development. Read. Matrix: Int. Online J. 2015; 15 (1):102–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovett M.W., De Palma M., Frijters J., Steinbach K., Temple M., Benson N., Lacerenza L. Interventions for reading difficulties: a comparison of response to intervention by ELL and EFL struggling readers. J. Learn. Disabil. 2008; 41 (4):333–352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig C. University of Alberta; Canada: 2017. The Effects of Reading Interventions on the Word-Reading Performance of English Language Learners: A Meta-Analysis (Unpublished Master’s Thesis) [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig C., Guo K., Georgiou G.K. Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. J. Learn. Disabil. 2019; 52 (3):220–231. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macaruso P., Rodman A. Benefits of computer-assisted instruction to support reading acquisition in English language learners. Biling. Res. J. 2011; 34 (3):301–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendoza S. Reading strategies to support home-to-school connections used by teachers of English language learners. J. English Lang. Teach. 2016; 6 (4):33–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meredith D.C. Trevecca Nazarene University; 2017. Relationships Among Utilization of an Online Differentiated Reading Program, ELL Student Literacy Outcomes, and Teacher Attitudes. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan P.L., Sideridis G.D. Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: a multilevel random coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2006; 21 (4):191–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2021. English Language Learners in Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson C.B., Land R. A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction for English language learners in secondary school. Res. Teach. Engl. 2007:269–303. [ Google Scholar ]
• Orosco M.J. A sociocultural examination of response to intervention with Latino English language learners. Theory Into Pract. 2010; 49 (4):265–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortiz A.A., Robertson P.M., Wilkinson C.Y., Liu Y.J., McGhee B.D., Kushner M.I. The role of bilingual education teachers in preventing inappropriate referrals of ELLs to special education: implications for response to intervention. Biling. Res. J. 2011; 34 (3):316–333. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pang Y. Empowering ELL students to improve writing skills through inquiry-based learning. N. Engl. Read. Assoc. J. 2016; 51 (2):75–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Polat N., Zarecky-Hodge A., Schreiber J.B. Academic growth trajectories of ELLs in NAEP data: The case of fourth-and eighth-grade ELLs and non-ELLs on mathematics and reading tests. J. Educ. Res. 2016; 109 (5):541–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor C.P., Dalton B., Grisham D.L. Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. J. Literacy Res. 2007; 39 (1):71–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawian R.M., Mokhtar A.A. ESL reading accuracy: the inside story. Soc. Sci. 2017; 12 (7):1242–1249. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid T., Heck R.H. Exploring reading achievement differences between elementary school students receiving and not receiving English language services. AERA Online Paper Repositor. 2017 [ Google Scholar ]
• Richards-Tutor C., Baker D.L., Gersten R., Baker S.K., Smith J.M. The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: a research synthesis. Except. Child. 2016; 82 (2):144–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ross S.G., Begeny J.C. Improving Latino, English language learners' reading fluency: the effects of small-group and one-on-one intervention. Psychol. Sch. 2011; 48 (6):604–618. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth A. Northwest Missouri State University; United States: 2015. Does Buddy Reading Improve Students' Oral Reading Fluency? Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin D.I. Growth in oral reading fluency of Spanish ELL students with learning disabilities. Interv. Sch. Clin. 2016; 52 (1):34–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir H., Feehan K., Yoder E. EdMedia+ Innovate Learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); 2016. June). Using technology to improve reading and math scores for the digital native; pp. 1425–1434. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir H., Feehan K., Yoder E., Pocklington D. MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING (MAC-EMM 2018); 2018. Can CAI Improve Reading Achievement in Young ELL Students? ECONOMICS; p. 229. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheng Z., Sheng Y., Anderson C.J. Dropping out of school among ELL students: implications to schools and teacher education. Clear. House. 2011; 84 (3):98–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snow C.E., Burns S.M., Griffin P. Predictors of success and failure in reading. Prevent. Read. Difficul. Young Child. 1998:100–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder E., Witmer S.E., Schmitt H. English language learners and reading instruction: a review of the literature. Prev. Sch. Fail.: Alter. Educ. Child. Youth. 2017; 61 (2):136–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soland J., Sandilos L.E. English language learners, self-efficacy, and the achievement gap: understanding the relationship between academic and social-emotional growth. J. Educ. Stud. Placed A. T. Risk. 2020:1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam K.Y., Heng M.A. Using explicit fluency training to improve the reading comprehension of second grade Chinese immigrant students. Mod. J. Lang. Teach Methods. 2016; 6 (5):17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Téllez K., Manthey G. Teachers’ perceptions of effective school-wide programs and strategies for English language learners. Learn. Environ. Res. 2015; 18 (1):111–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson C.G., von Gillern S. Video-game based instruction for vocabulary acquisition with English language learners: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020; 30 :100332. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Kim A., Sloan C.V.M., Hughes M.T., Elbaum B., Sridhar D. Social skills interventions for young children with disabilities: a synthesis of group design studies. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2003; 24 :2–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Martinez L.R., Linan-Thompson S., Reutebuch C.K., Carlson C.D., Francis D.J. Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: findings from two experimental studies. J. Res. Educ. Effect. 2009; 2 (4):297–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaughn S., Mathes P., Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P., Carlson C., Pollard-Durodola S., Francis D. Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elem. Sch. J. 2006; 107 (2):153–180. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010; 36 (3):1–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker S.A. Chicago State University; 2017. Exploration of ELL Parent Involvement Measured by Epstein's Overlapping Spheres of Influence. Doctoral dissertation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Roberts G. Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2012; 35 (2):90–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Wexler J., Vaughn S., Ciullo S. Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: a synthesis of 20 years of research. Read. Writ. 2010; 23 (8):889–912. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanzek J., Vaughn S., Scammacca N.K., Metz K., Murray C.S., Roberts G., Danielson L. Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Rev. Educ. Res. 2013; 83 (2):163–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wassell B.A., Hawrylak M.F., Scantlebury K. Barriers, resources, frustrations, and empathy: teachers’ expectations for family involvement for Latino/a ELL students in urban STEM classrooms. Urban Educ. 2017; 52 (10):1233–1254. [ Google Scholar ]
• White E.L., Gillard S. Technology-based literacy instruction for English language learners. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 2011; 8 (6):1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yousefi M.H., Biria R. The effectiveness of L2 vocabulary instruction: a meta-analysis. Asian-Pacific J. Second Fore. Lang. Educ. 2018; 3 (1):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]

References for studies included in the meta-analysis

• Amendum S.J., Bratsch-Hines M., Vernon-Feagans L. Investigating the efficacy of a web-based early reading and professional development intervention for young English learners. Read. Res. Q. 2018; 53 (2):155–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Youth Policy Forum. (2009). Issue brief Moving English language learners to college and career readiness. Retrieved November 22,2009, from: www.aypf.org/documents/ELLIssueBrief
• Callahan R.M., Shifrer D. Equitable access for secondary English learner students: course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educ. Admin. Q. 2016; 52 (3):463–496. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho H., Brutt-Griffler J. Integrated reading and writing: a case of Korean English language learners. Read. Foreign Lang. 2015; 27 (2):242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chow B.W.Y., McBride-Chang C., Cheung H. Parent–child reading in English as a second language: effects on language and literacy development of Chinese kindergarteners. J. Res. Read. 2010; 33 (3):284–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cruz de Quiros A.M., Lara-Alecio R., Tong F., Irby B.J. The effect of a structured story reading intervention, story retelling and higher order thinking for English language and literacy acquisition. J. Res. Read. 2012; 35 (1):87–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook A.L. Exploring the role of school counselors. J. Sch. Couns. 2015; 13 (9):1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dabarera C., Renandya W.A., Zhang L.J. The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System. 2014; 42 :462–473. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dockrell J.E., Stuart M., King D. Supporting early oral language skills for English language learners in inner city preschool provision. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 80 (4):497–515. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filippini A.L., Gerber M.M., Leafstedt J.M. A vocabulary-added reading intervention for English learners at-risk of reading difficulties. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2012; 27 (3):14–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fry R. How far behind in math and reading are English language learners? Pew Hispanic Center; Washington, DC: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamaludin K.A., Alias N., Mohd Khir R.J., DeWitt D., Kenayathula H.B. The effectiveness of synthetic phonics in the development of early reading skills among struggling young ESL readers. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 2016; 27 (3):455–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanno Y., Cromley J. English language learners’ pathways to four-year colleges. Teachers College Record. 2015; 117 (12):1–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mancilla-Martinez J. Word meanings matter: cultivating English vocabulary knowledge in fifth-grade Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Tesol Q. 2010; 44 (4):669–699. [ Google Scholar ]
• McMaster K.L., Kung S.H., Han I., Cao M. Peer-assisted learning strategies: a “Tier 1” approach to promoting English learners' response to intervention. Except. Child. 2008; 74 (2):194–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olivier A.M., Anthonissen C., Southwood F. Literacy development of English language learners: the outcomes of an intervention programme in grade R. S. Afr. J. Commun. Disord. 2010; 57 (1):58–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pollard-Durodola S.D., Gonzalez J.E., Saenz L., Resendez N., Kwok O., Zhu L., Davis H. The effects of content-enriched shared book reading versus vocabulary-only discussions on the vocabulary outcomes of preschool dual language learners. Early Educ. Dev. 2018; 29 (2):245–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor C.P., Dalton B., Uccelli P., Biancarosa G., Mo E., Snow C., Neugebauer S. Improving comprehension online: effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Read. Writ. 2011; 24 (5):517–544. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodríguez C.D., Filler J., Higgins K. Using primary language support via computer to improve reading comprehension skills of first-grade English language learners. Comput. Sch. 2012; 29 (3):253–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silverman R., Hines S. The effects of multimedia-enhanced instruction on the vocabulary of English-language learners and non-English-language learners in pre-kindergarten through second grade. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009; 101 (2):305–314. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin R.E., Madden N., Calderón M., Chamberlain A., Hennessy M. Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educ. Eval. Pol. Anal. 2011; 33 (1):47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solari E.J., Gerber M.M. Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English language learners: teaching text-level reading skills while maintaining effects on word-level skills. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2008; 23 (4):155–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spycher P. Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse kindergarten classes. Elem. Sch. J. 2009; 109 (4):359–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Koch J. Integrating literacy and science for English language learners: from learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. J. Educ. Res. 2014; 107 (5):410–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Mathes P.G. English and Spanish acquisition by Hispanic second graders in developmental bilingual programs: a 3-year longitudinal randomized study. Hisp. J. Behav. Sci. 2008; 30 (4):500–529. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Irby B.J., Lara-Alecio R., Yoon M., Mathes P.G. Hispanic English learners' responses to longitudinal English instructional intervention and the effect of gender: a multilevel analysis. Elem. Sch. J. 2010; 110 (4):542–566. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tong F., Lara-Alecio R., Irby B.J., Mathes P.G. The effects of an instructional intervention on dual language development among first-grade Hispanic English-learning boys and girls: a two-year longitudinal study. J. Educ. Res. 2011; 104 (2):87–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend D., Collins P. Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: an intervention study. Read. Writ. 2009; 22 (9):993–1019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy P.F., Sanders E.A. Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010; 102 (4):786–803. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vadasy P.F., Sanders E.A. Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: how language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Sci. Stud. Read. 2011; 15 (6):471–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Staden A. Reading in a second language: considering the 'simple view of reading' as a foundation to support ESL readers in Lesotho, Southern Africa. Per Linguam: J. Lang. Learn. 2016; 32 (1):21–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeung S.S., Siegel L.S., Chan C.K. Effects of a phonological awareness program on English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children. Read. Writ. 2013; 26 (5):681–704. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]